This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
TrumpSpace

Deputy NASA Administrator Chatter

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 5, 2017

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

13 responses to “Deputy NASA Administrator Chatter”

  1. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    On the one hand it would be good for JSC to see astronaut Ellen move on-some of her choices for directorate leaders were simply abysmal, but on the other hand Bridenstine will need someone who is capable technically and an executive leader, and I doubt that a current NASA center director or an astronaut fits the bill. None I know of have the appropriate and successful experience in either category. Surely there must be a competent and experienced technical and executive leader out there? Maybe someone from the military?

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Not being a NASA insider— I always figured that those two jobs would require close collaboration and a similar world view. And it’s also true that I have no knowledge of Dr. Ochoa’s political leanings.

      Still, it would appear that finding a way to work together could be challenging.

    • sunman42 says:
      0
      0

      Um…. how about Chris Scolese at Goddard, who actually ran the Agency for six months as Acting Administrator in 2009, and was AA for three years after that? Come to think of it, how about Scolese instead of Bridenstine?

  2. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Ellen and Jimmy,
    Sittin’ in a tree,
    k-i-s-s-i-n-g……NOT!

    The Scientist and the Denier. A match made in heaven.

  3. Michael Genest says:
    0
    0

    Geez, does everything have to be judged within the framework of climate change? I do believe NASA does get involved in one or two other aspects of space exploration and aeronautics. Maybe we should just let NOAA deal with the whole climate thing and let NASA – and its prospective leadership – focus on its many other missions.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Because NASA’s charter requires that it do earth science. Go Google it and see for yourself.

    • Jim R. says:
      0
      0

      Agree. NOAA is better suited for climate research.

    • muomega0 says:
      0
      0

      Peer review is essential. Case in point: Consolidation of Launch vehicles.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      To the extent that this means giving up on NASA Earth science, that would mean giving up on one of NASA’s primary goals. On the other hand, it isn’t NASA’s only goal. With the current administration, I don’t think an Administrator with a strong focus on climate change is realistic. Maybe someone who would do a good job with the rest of NASA’s portfolio is the best we can hope for.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Riigghhtt– how do you trust anything the person says?

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          What makes you think I’d trust anything any manager says? That’s an exaggeration, since I do trust a few. But I doubt I’d trust anything a Trump appointee said. At least not without a large grain of salt.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      does everything have to be judged within the framework of climate change

      Well, yes, and no. Single-issue zealots tend to be myopic. And generalizing from a single data point isn’t often fruitful.

      But climate denying is egregiously anti-science. Knowing that the Administrator holds these views immediately makes suspect every single decision he makes. This will have the effect of slowing the already-slow progress made by the Agency because people will naturally drag their feet as they assess any sort of science-involved directive from the Administrator.

      In other words, you cannot trust a climate denier.

      • Michael Genest says:
        0
        0

        Michael S. – That seems a little too simplistic for my taste. A person who is grotesquely in error on topic A may be 100% capable of being totally righteous on Topic B. For example, if Topic B entails being a strong supporter of an aggressive “establish a permanent human presence on the Moon” strategy for the USA and it’s partners, then I say hire the man, and be quick about it!